Days before his second term ended in 2009, Bush’s approval rating among all adults was 33 percent positive and 66 percent negative. The new poll found 47 percent saying they approve and 50 percent saying they disapprove. Among registered voters, his approval rating today is equal to President Obama’s, at 47 percent, according to the latest Post-ABC surveys…

“Obviously, it’s a big moment for him,” former British prime minister Tony Blair said in a telephone interview from London. “It’s a chance for him to explain that his political philosophy encompasses much more than the decisions he had to take after 9/11. We forget this sometimes. . . . This is a much more rounded person with many more dimensions to him than the caricature often portrays.”

Despite a slight increase in his favorable ratings, the new Fox poll nonetheless finds that George W. Bush fares least well among the former presidents in terms of current popularity. Clinton tops the list, with 71 percent of voters viewing him favorably. He’s followed by Carter and George H.W. Bush who each garner 59 percent favorable ratings…

Overall, Bush had an average 51 percent approval rating across his entire presidency. Up to this point in his presidency, Obama has an average approval rating of 48 percent.

***

It is possible that documents and archives will reveal Bush in a more positive light, but there’s no getting around the fact that his decisions on Iraq and on fiscal policy have led to huge problems. He not only committed U.S. forces in Afghanistan after 9/11, his decision to invade Iraq kicked off a 10-year war of choice that has destabilized the Middle East and drained the United States of blood, treasure, and the will to intervene abroad. He cut taxes across the board and borrowed money to pay for the wars as well as a new prescription-drug program for seniors. That led to a ballooning deficit and debt, and left the country ill-positioned to deal with the Great Recession that set in toward the end of his term.

It’s not that there weren’t accomplishments during the Bush era. He receives deserved praise for his international drive to fight AIDS, and his controversial No Child Left Behind Act institutionalized the overdue concept of accountability in U.S. education. The even more controversial legal and military methods he adopted to fight terrorists have been largely validated by the Obama administration, which has in many cases continued their use. And he was a pioneer in pushing for comprehensive immigration reform, a worthy cause that has now been revived.

But all of that is overshadowed by the deficits, the economic collapse, and, above all, Iraq. “Ultimately, what will drive how he’s viewed is how the Iraq experiment turns out,” says Bruce Buchanan, a presidential scholar and longtime Bush-watcher at the University of Texas-Austin. “The mismanagement of Iraq will always be there, but it will fade if Iraq turns into a flower of democracy.”

***

All of this overheated rhetoric and fear-mongering has come from academics who profess to live the life of the mind. In their hasty, partisan-tinged assessments of Bush, far too many scholars breached their professional obligations, engaging in a form of scholarly malpractice, by failing to do what historians are trained to do before pronouncing judgment on a presidency: conduct tedious archival research, undertake oral history interviews, plow through memoirs, interview foreign leaders and wait for the release of classified information.

There is a difference between punditry and scholarship. The latter requires biding one’s time and offering perspective as the evidence emerges and the passions of the day cool. An assessment of Harry Truman’s presidency looks quite different today than it did immediately after he left the White House in 1953. And no historian, especially Schlesinger, would have predicted in 1961 that 21st-century scholars would rank Dwight Eisenhower among the nation’s greatest presidents.

George W. Bush’s low standing among academics reflects, in part, the rise of partisan scholarship: the use of history as ideology and as a political weapon, which means the corruption of history as history. Bush may not have been a great president; he may even be considered an average or below-average president, but he and — more important — the nation deserve better than this partisan rush to judgment.

***

President Bush is extremely smart by any traditional standard. He’s highly analytical and was incredibly quick to be able to discern the core question he needed to answer. It was occasionally a little embarrassing when he would jump ahead of one of his Cabinet secretaries in a policy discussion and the advisor would struggle to catch up. He would sometimes force us to accelerate through policy presentations because he so quickly grasped what we were presenting…

In addition to his analytical speed, what most impressed me were his memory and his substantive breadth. We would sometimes have to brief him on an issue that we had last discussed with him weeks or even months before. He would remember small facts and arguments from the prior briefing and get impatient with us when we were rehashing things we had told him long ago.

And while my job involved juggling a lot of balls, I only had to worry about economic issues. In addition to all of those, at any given point in time he was making enormous decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan, on hunting al Qaeda and keeping America safe. He was making choices not just on taxes and spending and trade and energy and climate and health care and agriculture and Social Security and Medicare, but also on education and immigration, on crime and justice issues, on environmental policy and social policy and politics. Being able to handle such substantive breadth and depth, on such huge decisions, in parallel, requires not just enormous strength of character but tremendous intellectual power. President Bush has both.

***

Fact is that both Bush and Clinton do small acts of kindness every day, with little or no public notice.

Why? Because, like past presidents, they realize the office is bigger than they are. Because they are deeply grateful for the job we gave them, and they feel obliged to return the favor.

Our presidents and ex-presidents are not perfect. You won’t always agree with them. You might not even think they’re worthy of the office. But try to remember what Clinton told me a few days before he left Arkansas for Washington (and a few years before the Lewinsky affair made it sadly ironic): “You don’t check your humanity at the Oval Office door.”

“We’re just laying out the facts. And that was a fact,” Bush said. “I am comfortable in the decision-making process. I think the removal of Saddam Hussein was the right decision for not only our own security but for giving people a chance to live in a free society. But history will ultimately decide that, and I won’t be around to see it.

“As far as I’m concerned, the debate is over. I mean, I did what I did. And historians will ultimately judge those decisions.”

But in his more than four years of governing, Obama has also adopted or let stand a series of Bush initiatives, illustrating how the policies of one administration can take hold and how the realities of governing often limit solutions.

Bush’s signature education plan, No Child Left Behind, remains the law of the land, though the Obama administration has granted states waivers to give them flexibility in meeting performance targets. A Bush Medicare prescription drug plan, criticized for its cost, is now popular with beneficiaries, and Obama has sought to improve it by providing relief for seniors with high bills. Obama continued the unpopular bank bailouts and expanded the auto industry rescue that Bush initiated in 2008.

Bush authorized a military surge in Iraq in an effort to tame the conflict there. Obama completed the withdrawal of troops from Iraq but also authorized a military surge in Afghanistan before beginning a drawdown of troops that is expected to be completed at the end of 2014.

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

It’s to the point of parody now. This morning he was talking about the North Dakota female Senator and the one from New Hampshire. A Dem and Repub who both released statements that their constituents back home flooded their phone lines and Schmoe is all “WHO CARES?! YOU CAN’T HANDLE THOSE PEOPLE?!”

I’ve lost all respect for Willie and Halperin who just sit there and mumbly whisper “Well maybe Obama should have worked harder….” and then let Schmoe continue to rant. Willie you are an ass who used to be quite Conservative when you were with Tucker Carlson.

Both Bush’s were a class act compared to the present trash in the WH now.

avagreen on April 25, 2013 at 7:31 AM

That’s because the Bush’s understood that the Presidency wasn’t all about them. The filthy grifters in the White House now are treating the Presidency as cult leader who has absolutely no accountablity to the Constitution, Congress, or the American people.

It will be interesting to see this edition of the gathering of the most exclusive club in the world. I suspect that the rat-eared coward and his grifter spouse will look awfully small among the adults and leaders that preceeded him.

I think of it like this…
When your starving..even a piece of bread looks scrumptious.
We are starving..
Laura and G Bush..I liked personally..seemed good people.
But i don’t miss him.
Rephrase the question- compared to what we have now..do you miss him?
Well duh..yes. I would take the bread over the molded ant covered cracker.

I was never a Bush fan..he got my vote.. same way McStupid did. Lesser evil.
I belive he cared and loves the USA- but I have no longing for him..
and have little great to same about his presidency. Again..compared to Zero- a diamond. Not the point though.

As a conservative, no, George, I do not miss you. You are not a conservative. Your father gave us Clinton, and the damage you did to the Republican brand gave us obama. You are a decent person, but totally misguided with your compassionate conservatism. Your political cowardice, coupled with that of other politicians gave us the rogue agencies of DHS and TSA…we will never rid ourselves of these cancers. You signed a bill (Campaign Finance) that you openly stated you thought was unconstitutional. There are many more reason that I don’t miss you, but I want to keep this short. We are a country of over 300 million people. It is the height of arrogance for you to think we need your brother, another Bush, as President. We do not. Please just go away. Another Bush would eventually lead to our demise. You and your father, and I am sure, your brother are nothing but globalists. We do not need you running the country. Certainly, you were better than obama, anyone would be. Anyone who makes a comparison such as that to make your Presidency look better is a fool. Obviously I have strong feelings on this issue. Just go away.

Certainly, you were better than obama, anyone would be. Anyone who makes a comparison such as that to make your Presidency look better is a fool. Obviously I have strong feelings on this issue. Just go away.

rjh on April 25, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Certainly no one here would argue with your bonafides when it comes to expertise in have intimate knowledge of a “fool”.

Certainly, you were better than obama, anyone would be. Anyone who makes a comparison such as that to make your Presidency look better is a fool. Obviously I have strong feelings on this issue. Just go away.

rjh on April 25, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Certainly no one here would argue with your bonafides when it comes to expertise in have intimate knowledge of a “fool”.

williamg on April 25, 2013 at 12:01 PM

I see you have not disputed anything in my comment. Name calling…great response.

Certainly, you were better than obama, anyone would be. Anyone who makes a comparison such as that to make your Presidency look better is a fool. Obviously I have strong feelings on this issue. Just go away.

rjh on April 25, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Certainly no one here would argue with your bonafides when it comes to expertise in *having intimate knowledge of a “fool”.

williamg on April 25, 2013 at 12:01 PM

I see you have not disputed anything in my comment. Name calling…great response.

rjh on April 25, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Wait a minute – just exactly WHO was it that was engaging in “name calling“? Let’s review:

Anyone who makes a comparison such as that to make your Presidency look better is a fool.

rjh on April 25, 2013 at 11:27 AM

AH!!! – Yes, it was YOU who was “name calling” so, like any good liberal – you Projected Your Behavior on to ANYONE who did swear an oath of 100% fealty and agreement with you subsequent to YOUR Name Calling.

Wait a minute – just exactly WHO was it that was engaging in “name calling“? Let’s review:

Anyone who makes a comparison such as that to make your Presidency look better is a fool.

rjh on April 25, 2013 at 11:27 AM

AH!!! – Yes, it was YOU who was “name calling” so, like any good liberal – you Projected Your Behavior on to ANYONE who did swear an oath of 100% fealty and agreement with you subsequent to YOUR Name Calling.

GOT IT! Thanks!

williamg on April 25, 2013 at 12:24 PM

In addition to your lack of reasoning ability and immature use of name calling, you apparently also have a reading comprehension problem. The very first words of my post were: “As a conservative”. Anyone with any political awareness reading my comment should certainly be able to see that I am a conservative who is disgusted with the RINOs being served up as conservatives…yet you accuse me of being a liberal. I guarantee you, I am at least as conservative as anyone on this site. Do you often construct these little false realities in your head to fit your opinion? I have obviously offended a Bush fanboy. I have no more time to waste on you…respond or not, I will not react to your nonsensical comments any further.